On May 21, 2025, as the crypto market celebrated Bitcoin’s record-breaking run above $109,000, a quieter but equally consequential development unfolded on Capitol Hill. House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-MN) and Congressman Ritchie Torres (D-NY) reintroduced the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA) — a bipartisan bill that seeks to clarify once and for all that blockchain developers and service providers who never custody consumer funds are not money transmitters.
TL;DR
- Reps. Tom Emmer and Ritchie Torres reintroduce the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA) on May 21, 2025
- The bill establishes a safe harbor for non-custodial blockchain developers, confirming they are not money transmitters under federal law
- Bipartisan co-sponsors serve as co-chairs of the Congressional Crypto Caucus and sit on the House Financial Services Digital Assets Subcommittee
- Industry groups including Coin Center, DeFi Education Fund, Blockchain Association, and The Digital Chamber back the legislation
- The bill addresses years of regulatory uncertainty that has driven blockchain developers overseas
The Core Principle: No Custody, No License
The BRCA rests on a straightforward premise: if you do not hold consumer funds, you should not be regulated as a financial institution. Congressman Emmer put it bluntly: “If you don’t custody consumer funds, you aren’t a money transmitter. Plain and simple.”
The bill codifies this principle into law, creating a safe harbor for blockchain developers, miners, validators, and service providers who build and maintain decentralized, non-custodial infrastructure. Under current regulatory ambiguity, these actors have faced the risk of enforcement actions under money transmission licensing laws — a framework designed for custodial financial intermediaries, not open-source software developers.
Congressman Torres framed the stakes clearly: “The United States should be the global home for responsible innovation, not a place where developers are punished for building open-source software or experimenting with new technologies. This bill provides clear, commonsense rules for developers who never take custody of consumer funds.”
Why This Bill Matters Now
The reintroduction comes at a moment of heightened regulatory activity across the digital asset space. On the same day, the Senate advanced the GENIUS Act stablecoin framework in a 66-32 cloture vote, signaling a broader congressional appetite for crypto regulation that the House appears eager to match.
Peter Van Valkenburgh, Executive Director of Coin Center, emphasized the urgency: “The Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act is the best way to protect American crypto developers and innovators from undue regulation by prosecution. Recent misapplication of licensing laws has substantially chilled the development of privacy and freedom-enhancing tech in the US.”
The reference to “regulation by prosecution” points to a pattern of enforcement actions by the Department of Justice and financial regulators against developers of privacy tools and non-custodial protocols — actions that industry advocates argue treat software code as a financial service.
A Seven-Year Journey
Majority Whip Emmer has championed this approach since 2018, consistently arguing that developers of decentralized tools should not face custodial-style regulation. A similar version of the bill was voted down in committee markup during the previous Congress, but the sponsors took that feedback seriously and returned with what Torres described as “a smarter, sharper framework that protects innovation without compromising oversight.”
Having both Emmer and Torres as lead sponsors — co-chairs of the Congressional Crypto Caucus, members of the House Financial Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Digital Assets, and trusted voices on bipartisan tech policy — significantly improves the legislation’s prospects this time around.
Industry Coalition Behind the Bill
The BRCA has assembled an unusually broad coalition of industry support. Amanda Tuminelli, Executive Director and Chief Legal Officer of the DeFi Education Fund, called it “an important step in the right direction for the development of digital assets in the United States” that would protect developers of non-custodial, peer-to-peer software protocols from being unreasonably defined as operators of unlicensed money services businesses.
Sarah Milby, Interim CEO and Head of Policy at the Blockchain Association, emphasized the competitive dimension: “This important legislation affirms that innovators building and maintaining decentralized, non-custodial blockchain protocols should not be unfairly treated as financial intermediaries.”
Cody Carbone, CEO of The Digital Chamber, struck a similar note: “Blockchain developers, miners, and validators aren’t financial institutions — they’re builders. The bipartisan Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act will finally give them the freedom to build in the United States.”
Broader Regulatory Landscape
The BRCA is one piece of a larger regulatory puzzle taking shape in 2025. The Senate’s advancement of the GENIUS Act for stablecoins, ongoing SEC Crypto Task Force discussions, and multiple pending bills addressing market structure and digital asset classification all point to a Congress that is — finally — engaging with crypto regulation at scale.
For developers, the cumulative effect could be transformative. Clear rules about what does and does not constitute a regulated activity would allow blockchain projects to operate in the United States with confidence, reversing the talent exodus that has seen many builders relocate to jurisdictions with more predictable regulatory environments.
Why This Matters
The Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act addresses a foundational question that has shadowed the crypto industry for years: can you build decentralized software in the United States without being treated as a bank? If the answer becomes a clear “yes” — as this bill intends — it would unlock a wave of innovation currently bottled up by legal uncertainty. Combined with the stablecoin framework advancing in the Senate, the United States is assembling the building blocks of a comprehensive digital asset regulatory structure. The question is no longer whether Congress will regulate crypto, but what shape that regulation will take — and whether it will protect builders or push them away.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or legal advice. The views expressed by lawmakers and industry representatives are their own. Always consult a qualified professional for regulatory guidance.
coin center, defi education fund, and blockchain association all backing this bill. when the entire industry agrees on something, congress should listen
every crypto lobby backing something unanimously makes opponents assume its industry self-interest, not good policy. the optics matter as much as the substance
Tunde O. when every lobby group backs something unanimously the default assumption should be scrutiny. the substance might be good but the optics are rough
Self-regulation through DAOs might be the path forward
Compliant exchanges will win the long game
Institutional money is waiting for clear rules before allocating
The political landscape around crypto is shifting rapidly
no custody no license is such a simple principle it shouldnt need legislation. years of regulatory ambiguity drove developers to Lisbon and Singapore for literally no reason
Ingrid B. developers moved to Lisbon and Singapore because writing open source code in the US carried money transmission liability. insane overreach
driving developers overseas was the most counterproductive regulatory strategy. you cant jail open source code but you can lose the tax revenue and the talent
civic_key portugal built an entire tech hub from US regulatory flight. singapore too. the brain drain was entirely self-inflicted
Emmer and Torres sitting on the House Financial Services Digital Assets Subcommittee while co-sponsoring this bill. they actually understand the tech, not just the politics
no custody no license should be the default not something requiring a bipartisan bill. the fact that this is controversial shows how broken financial regulation has become